Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Well 78-32 location”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

8 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Utah FORGE: Updated Phase 2C Well Location Coordinates

Utah FORGE has been established to develop, test, and improve the technologies and techniques required to develop EGS-type geothermal resources. Drilling of the first of two deep deviated wells, 16A(78)-32, will begin in the second half of 2020. This well will serve as the injection well for the injection-production well pair that will form the heart of the laboratory. This submission contains an archive of well location data within the Roosevelt Hot Springs geothermal area. An Excel spreadsheet is included containing updated GPS data for Utah FORGE wells drilled during Phase 2C (56-32, 68-32, 78-32). This data was collected over time by the Utah Geological Survey and contains all coordinates collected and the final averaged XY coordinates in both Longitude and Latitude and UTM Zone 12, NAD83. Elevation is also included. GIS shapefiles with well points are provided in the archive.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE 2439: A Multi-Component Approach to Characterizing In-Situ Stress

Core-based in-situ stress estimation, Triaxial Ultrasonic Velocity (labTUV) data, and Deformation Rate Analysis (DRA) data for Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32 using triaxial ultrasonic velocity and deformation rate analysis. Report documenting a multi-component approach to characterizing in-situ stress at the U.S. DOE FORGE EGS site: laboratory, modeling and field measurement. Core-based methods for in-situ stress estimation were applied using samples from 5 intervals within the Utah FORGE 16A(78)-32 well. At three of these locations, Triaxial Ultrasonic Velocity (labTUV) tests were performed, resulting in experimentally-determined relationships between wave velocities and stresses. Non-monotonic increase in the velocity-stress relationships are inferred provide evidence of stress history and are therefore used to estimate in-situ stress magnitudes. Additionally, Deformation Rate Analysis (DRA) tests were run on core plugs from various orientations at each of the 5 sampling locations. These, too, provide evidence of stress history based on stress-strain behavior. A novel Weight of Evidence (WoE) method was developed as a means of synthesizing in-situ stress evidence from these two types of tests. Results indicate the minimum horizontal stress gradient ranges from 0.58 psi/ft to 0.69 psi/ft, with 4 of the 5 values between 0.66 psi/ft and 0.69 psi/ft. The vertical stress gradient ranges from 1.05 psi/ft to 1.12 psi/ft, with 4 of the 5 zones given results between 1.09 psi/ft and 1.12 psi/ft. The maximum horizontal stress gradient ranges from 0.98 psi/ft to 1.34 psi/ft, with 4 of the 5 zones falling between 0.98 psi/ft and 1.24 psi/ft. The stress regime thus appears to be on the edge between normal faulting and strike-slip faulting, potentially flipping back and forth between the two regimes due to variability of rock properties, structures such as faults, and/or thermal anomalies.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Updated FMI Fracture Log from Well 16A(78)-32

This dataset consists of an Excel spreadsheet detailing the fracture picks from a reinterpretation of the formation micro-imaging (FMI) log from Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32. The provided information details fracture location, geometry, and type. Also included here is a link to the original raw and processed FMI logs, as well as other data from the 2021 well logging.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: GES Well 16A(78)-32 and Well 16B(78)-32 Stimulation Seismic Event Catalogs

This dataset contains seismic event catalogs from the hydraulic stimulation of wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 at the Utah FORGE site in April 2024. The data was collected by Geo Energy Suisse (GES) using a variety of seismic monitoring technologies, including 3-component (3C) geophones and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) systems. These technologies were deployed across several locations, including wells 16A, 16B, and Delano-1, with sensor arrays at multiple depths to capture microseismic activity during the stimulations. The catalogs provide both real-time and manually checked seismic event locations, with detailed parameters such as trigger conditions, velocity models, and data acquisition settings. The dataset includes information on the stimulation stages, event rates, and hydraulic injection conditions for each well, with a report detailing the data acquisition configuration and seismic event location methodologies. Users will need to reference the included report for a complete understanding of the sensor network, data processing techniques, and accuracy considerations.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE: Updated Seismic Event Catalogue from the April, 2022 Stimulation of Well 16A(78)-32

These are revised catalogs, related to the April, 2022 well 16A(78)-32 stimulation (phases 1,2, & 3), provided by Geo Energie Suisse (GES) that include additional events at the start of Stage 1 and some tidying up of some locations. These catalogs also include events for additional events that were auto-located to provide a larger dataset for statistical analyses, like b-value calculations. The actual auto-locations have been removed to prevent spurious location plots being created. Times are recorded in UTC (Coordinate Universal Time), and the coordinate reference system is UTM Zone 12N, NAD83.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE: Phase 1a Tensor Strainmeter Data for the April, 2022 Stimulation of Well 16A(78)-32

Data from two Tensor Optical Fiber Strainmeters that were operational during Stages 1, 2, and 3 of the April, 2022 stimulation of well 16A(78)-32. Each csv file contains data from each stimulation stage (stage1, stage2, stage3) for both Phase 1a strainmeter installations (FS01, formerly FS-C, and FS02, formerly FS1-2) in human-readable comma-separated value text files. There are two header lines in each file describing the data contained in that column along with their units, respectively. Data have been decimated from 2 to 1 Hz to match the Pason data found in the linked GDR dataset below (16A78-32 Stimulation Pason Data). These files contain the time series spanning the same time interval as the Pason data as well as ambient data for 5 hours before the stimulation and 5 hours following shut in. The station locations were chosen based on their proximity to the borehole seismometers owned and operated by the University of Utah. See README.txt for more information.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Prediction and Analysis of Utah FORGE Injection Activities using a Coupled Thermo-hydro-mechanical and Earthquake (THM+E) Modeling Workflow

A coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) numerical workflow that is capable of modeling seismic slip is critical for the successful development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). By integrating key physical processes, this workflow enables accurate simulation of temperature and pressure diffusions, stress changes, and induced seismicity. As a result, it serves as a vital tool for predicting induced seismicity and optimizing reservoir stimulation strategies. The Utah FORGE (Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy) project, located near Milford, Utah, is a U.S. Department of Energy initiative aimed at advancing EGS technology. In April 2024, eight new stimulation stages (Stages 3R-10) were conducted in well 16A (injection well) subsequent to the first series of stimulation (Stages 1-3) performed in April, 2022. To monitor the induced seismicity, geophones were deployed in wells 58-32, 56-32, and 78B-32, while fiber optic cables were also installed in wells 16B, 78-32, and 78B-32 to collect microseismic data and detect frac hits Preliminary analyses of microseismic catalogs and fiber optic data suggest that the stimulated fractures in Stages 3R–6 closely align with that generated during Stage 3, indicating that the new stimulations were likely reactivating the previously stimulated fracture. To better understand the underlying process, a comprehensive modeling approach that can accurately capture thermal, hydrological, mechanical, and seismic responses is essential. In this work, we propose and utilize a coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical and earthquake (THM+E) simulation workflow to numerically investigate the stimulation activities on well 16A. The specific objective is to confirm whether the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) reactivated fractures previously stimulated during Stage 3. For this purpose, we perform THM+E simulations individually for Stages 3, 3R, 4, and 5, incorporating the discrete fracture networks (DFNs) created by the plane-fitting technique based on the microseismic catalogs. The simulation workflow consists of two separate models: a THM model and an earthquake model, coupled in a one-way manner. Detailed descriptions of the workflow are provided in Section 3. Simulation results are presented in terms of injection pressure, permeability evolution, and predicted seismic catalogs, which are then compared with field data for further analyses. This report is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present detailed analyses of the field data and propose the hypothesis that the new stimulation stages (Stages 3R–6) were probably reactivating the previously stimulated fractures in Stage 3. In Section 3, we introduce the coupled THM+E workflow and the problem setup to validate our hypothesis, followed by the simulation results for each stage in Section 4. Meanwhile, discussions are included to analyze the model predictions and their comparison with field data. Lastly, we conclude the report and outline future plans in Section 5.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗